Seanad debates

Tuesday, 20 February 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage

 

4:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I oppose this section because it seems extraordinary to claim that a body corporate is the same as a natural person. I do not believe that for a minute. This defect is compounded by the provision that a body corporate may bring a defamation action under this Bill in respect of a statement concerning it that it claims is defamatory "whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement". If there is no financial hurt, one is left only with feelings. I contend, however, that corporate entities are not entitled to feelings. The ability to feel is a human attribute that does not attach to the collective in the same way.

I again plead the interest of the ordinary person in this. If I were to say that Guinness or Mars bars are bad for us, should the corporate entities that manufacture those products be allowed to land on me? There may well be reason for a corporate body to be allowed, as is the current situation, to take an action where it can demonstrate financial loss. We should not be expected, however, to compensate a corporate entity for an injury to its supposed corporate feelings.

The language is clear in specifying that the provisions of this Bill apply to a body corporate as they apply to a natural person. This revolts common sense. It is perfectly reasonable that a business enterprise that can demonstrate a financial injury should have recourse. It seems, however, that what is left when one removes financial damage is bruised feeling. Perhaps I am missing something here that the Minister may be able to clarify. I do not give a damn about the bruised feelings of Mars, Guinness, Tesco or, in particular, Dunnes Stores. Nor do I care about the feelings of Independent Newspapers, a company in which Senator Maurice Hayes has declared an interest.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.